Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
While Guyger did probably intend to kill the man (in a technically correct is the worst kind of correct sort of way), I don't think it's murder. Not unless she knew it was his apartment, knew he wasn't a threat, and intended to kill him anyway.
Click to expand...

It should make absolutely no difference. She murdered a man in his apartment that was no threat to anyone or anything because she was either negligent or entirely too stupid to find her own apartment. Either way her carelessness cost a man his life, and she belongs in prison for it.

It's my hope that she spends at least the next 20 years of her life thinking about it while admiring her orange jumpsuit.
 
Belz... said:
That's exactly what I said.
Click to expand...
I make a distinction between having a good reason and thinking you have a good reason when you don't.

So I think it's not exactly what you said. You said it's not a crime if you have a good reason. I say it's not a crime if you reasonably believe you have a good reason, even when you don't.
 
theprestige said:
Calling it murder begs exactly the questions of knowledge and intent that are in dispute.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Negligent homicide is still homicide by definition:

the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that she deliberately shot Botham to kill him. She didn't fire once, she fired twice. You can certainly argue intent, but there is absolutely zero doubt that she is guilty of negligent homicide at the very least.
 
Belz... said:
What do you mean "nope"? Where are we disagreeing, exactly?
Click to expand...
Your opening paragraph. It makes not one iota difference whether her initial mistake was reasonable or not. She isn't on trial for trespassing, she is on trial for making the decision to kill Jean.
 
theprestige said:
Calling it murder begs exactly the questions of knowledge and intent that are in dispute.
Click to expand...
She intended to kill him, her intent when she drew her gun, aimed, fired, aimed again and fired again was to kill him. She wouldn't have shot him otherwise.
 
theprestige said:
I make a distinction between having a good reason and thinking you have a good reason when you don't.

So I think it's not exactly what you said. You said it's not a crime if you have a good reason. I say it's not a crime if you reasonably believe you have a good reason, even when you don't.
Click to expand...

https://sharpcriminalattorney.com/b...gent-homicide-in-texas-laws-and-consequences/

Criminally Negligent Homicide vs. Manslaughter
Criminally negligent homicide is similar to another criminal offense known as manslaughter. In terms of punishment, criminally negligent homicide is not as severe as manslaughter. However, these two charges share some characteristics.

For example, they both involve the killing of another person without the element of premeditation. Manslaughter, however, refers to the death of another person caused by recklessness. A person who commits a “heat of passion” killing may be charged with manslaughter because they acted with disregard for another person’s life, even though they did not plan to. Also, a person who fires a gun randomly and kills another person may be charged with manslaughter because they recklessly disregarded gun safety. Criminally negligent homicide is a distinct charge because it refers to a death that is caused by a person who omitted certain actions even though they should know better. For example, a person who fails to help a person that they have injured may be charged with this offense if that person dies as a result of their injury.
Click to expand...

Manslaughter seems to fit the case better than criminally-negligent homicide.
 
Last edited:
And we're right back to what even is a crime when you can just go "I thought the situation was different" to something of this magnitude.
 
Darat said:
Your opening paragraph. It makes not one iota difference whether her initial mistake was reasonable or not. She isn't on trial for trespassing, she is on trial for making the decision to kill Jean.
Click to expand...

Except that whether she was reasonable in her expectation to be at her home is central to that question. If she was (she wasn't) then she could be expected to defend her home.

JoeMorgue said:
And we're right back to what even is a crime when you can just go "I thought the situation was different" to something of this magnitude.
Click to expand...

If her expectation was reasonable, which it wasn't.
 
I'd say there's a relative difference between shooting to kill someone you assumed was out to harm you without do anything to verify, and shooting to kill someone whom you knew wasn't a threat just because you wanted them dead.

The baseline for what she did here was totally unacceptable. I don't know what specific charge it should be, but her actions were clearly in the wrong. However if for example she went to his apartment and intentionally shot him dead because he was playing his stereo too loud that would be worse than what actually happened here, at least in my opinion. Saying 'x is worse than y' doesn't mean y is just hunky dory.

Actions aren't a simple binary 'okay/not okay'. What happened in this case is not even remotely okay, but it could have been something worse. I'd hate to see her get overcharged with that 'could have been worse' (say with something involving premeditation) and walk because she didn't technically meet that higher bar.
 
Joe Random said:
Actions aren't a simple binary 'okay/not okay'. What happened in this case is not even remotely okay, but it could have been something worse. I'd hate to see her get overcharged with that 'could have been worse' (say with something involving premeditation) and walk because she didn't technically meet that higher bar.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong about this, I'll let someone correct me if I am, but the jury can decide to charge with something other than what the prosecution comes with. I know that there have been a few situations where a person has been charged with crime x but got convicted of the lesser charge of crime y because the jury decide it that way. So I don't think they have to worry about overcharging and coming away with nothing. They can shoot for the stars and take what they get, I guess.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And we're right back to what even is a crime when you can just go "I thought the situation was different" to something of this magnitude.
Click to expand...

I'd say we're at "what crime was actually committed?"

If she knew where she was and who she was shooting, it's murder.

If she should have known where she was, etc., but didn't, then it's some form of criminal negligence.

If she didn't know where she was, etc., then it still might be criminal negligence, but maybe not, depending on the details and what the jury thinks of her argument.
 
theprestige said:
I'd say we're at "what crime was actually committed?"

If she knew where she was and who she was shooting, it's murder.

If she should have known where she was, etc., but didn't, then it's some form of criminal negligence.

If she didn't know where she was, etc., then it still might be criminal negligence, but maybe not, depending on the details and what the jury thinks of her argument.
Click to expand...

You missed out manslaughter. If firing a gun randomly and recklessly killing someone is manslaughter, then what she did was worse.
 
Peter: Man this is worse then going deer hunting with Dick Cheney.
*Cut to Peter and Cheney standing in a field dressed in hunting garb*
Peter: So are you all set to go hunting?
*Cheney raises his gun, shoots Peter several times in the face and chest. Peter falls forward and Cheney shoots him several more times in the back*
Cheney: Sorry, thought you were a deer.
 
theprestige said:
I'd say we're at "what crime was actually committed?"

If she knew where she was and who she was shooting, it's murder.

If she should have known where she was, etc., but didn't, then it's some form of criminal negligence.

If she didn't know where she was, etc., then it still might be criminal negligence, but maybe not, depending on the details and what the jury thinks of her argument.
Click to expand...

And if she couldn't be bothered to care one way or the other but decided to kill whoever it was anyway, on property she did not even own, murder 2.
 
These Yosemite Sam fantasies are great till you kill the plumber in your apartment building. Then maybe you stop and think about how good an idea these OK Corral laws in Texas are. Hopefully the people of Texas will consider this, much like other countries who clamp down on guns when they hit their bad scenarios.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom